Armed Forces Pay Review Body

Lord Astor of Hever: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence (Liam Fox) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The 2011 report of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB) has now been published. I wish to express my thanks to the chairman and members of the review body for their report. I am pleased to confirm that the AFPRB's recommendations are to be accepted in full, with implementation effective from 1 April 2011.
	In line with the Government's 2010 emergency Budget, which announced a two-year pay freeze for all public sector employees, the AFPRB basic military salary recommendations are only for those personnel earning £21,000 or less where the recommendation is for an increase of £250. The AFPRB also recommended a number of targeted measures, including the introduction of financial retention incentives to retain personnel essential to delivering key operational capability. The Government have also accepted the AFPRB recommendations to increase food and some accommodation charges.
	Copies of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body report will be available in the Vote Office.

Banks: Big Society Bank

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My honourable friend the Minister for Civil Society (Nick Hurd) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	On 14 February, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and I published a strategy to grow the social investment market, giving charities and social enterprises access to new capital to help them to increase their impact. The strategy explained the central role of the big society bank as a cornerstone of the market, acting as both a champion and wholesale provider of capital.
	In February we also announced that we would work with leading social investment experts to develop a proposal for the establishment of the big society bank as an independent private sector organisation. Since then, we have been engaging with the social investment sector, and we are pleased with the ideas coming forward. Today I would like to update the House on the next steps.
	As we announced in February, Sir Ronald Cohen, former chair of the Social Investment Taskforce, and Nick O'Donohoe, former global head of research at JP Morgan, are taking the lead on developing a proposal for a big society bank. They are engaging with the sector, and we expect that they will present their proposal to Government within the next few weeks. At that point, we expect to make an in-principle decision about whether the organisation they are proposing to establish could be the recipient of unclaimed assets from dormant accounts, subject to further development work and state aid approval. If the decision is made to go ahead, detailed set-up work for the big society bank would then be able to commence, including recruitment of its chair and board.
	By making this Statement today we want to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to feed in comments on the development of the proposal, or on our approach more generally. Separately, we are currently working to secure the state aid approvals from the European Commission that would be needed in order to capitalise an independent big society bank with money from dormant accounts and to provide it with the flexibility it needs to grow the market. We are also working with the Big Lottery Fund on interim arrangements that will enable investments to be made as soon as dormant accounts money becomes available in the summer, using existing state aid exemptions. We will make further announcements in due course.

Bill of Rights

Lord McNally: My honourable friend the Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform (Mark Harper) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Government have established an independent commission to investigate the creation of a UK Bill of Rights, fulfilling a commitment made in Our Programme for Government. The commission will explore a range of issues surrounding human rights law in the UK and will also play an advisory role on our continuing work to press for reform of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
	The UK will be pressing for significant reform of the European Court of Human Rights, building on the reform process under way in the lead-up to our chairmanship of the Council of Europe later this year. We will be pressing in particular to reinforce the principle that states rather than the European Court of Human Rights have the primary responsibility for protecting convention rights.
	The commission will be chaired by Sir Leigh Lewis KCB, a former Permanent Secretary at the Department for Work and Pensions with a long career in public service. He will be joined on the commission by: Jonathan Fisher QC, Martin Howe QC, Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws QC, Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC, Philippe Sands QC, Anthony Speaight QC, Professor Sir David Edward QC and Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky.
	The terms of reference for the commission are:
	"The Commission will investigate the creation of a UK Bill of Rights that incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, ensures that these rights continue to be enshrined in UK law, and protects and extend our liberties. It will examine the operation and implementation of these obligations, and consider ways to promote a better understanding of the true scope of these obligations and liberties. It should provide interim advice to the Government on the ongoing Interlaken process to reform the Strasbourg court ahead of and following the UK's chairmanship of the Council of Europe. It should consult, including with the public, judiciary and devolved administrations and legislatures, and aim to report no later than by the end of 2012".
	The commission members have, between them, extensive legal expertise and experience, and we expect the commission to take into account a broad range of views as it fulfils its remit. In addition, an advisory panel will be established to provide advice and expertise to the commission on issues arising in relation to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The commission will report jointly to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Justice. The commission will be supported in its work by a small secretariat of civil servants.

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007

Lord McNally: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Crispin Blunt) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Government will commence Section 2(1)(d) of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. The Act, the majority of which came into force on 6 April 2008, creates an offence whereby an organisation can be found guilty of corporate manslaughter if the way in which its activities are managed or organised causes a death and this amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care to the deceased.
	Section 2(1)(d) of the Act makes the duty of care that a custody provider owes to certain persons who are detained a relevant duty of care for the purpose of the offence. However, its implementation was delayed to allow custody providers time to ensure they were compliant with the Act. Those custody providers subject to the Act have indicated that they are ready for this provision to be commenced, and the Government intend to do this by the summer.
	The Act allows the Secretary of State to add further categories of persons in custody or detention to the list of those to whom a relevant duty of care is owed by reason of Section 2(1)(d). The Secretary of State intends to extend the Act to cover persons detained in Ministry of Defence service custody premises and in UK Border Agency facilities not already covered by the Act at the same time as commencing the existing custody provisions.
	Both the commencement and extension orders will be subject to an affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament.

Correction to Commons Oral Answer

Lord Astor of Hever: My right honourable friend the Minister for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans (Mr Robathan) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I regret to inform the House that an answer I gave in response to a supplementary question about nuclear test veterans from the honourable Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) during Defence Oral Questions on 31 January 2011 (Official Report, col. 573) could have been misleading. I said:
	"...the courts have found there is no causal link whatever between many of the disabilities and illnesses suffered and any exposure to radiation".
	This statement could have been open to interpretation and I wrote to the honourable Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) in response to a letter from him to clarify the position on 23 February. I also mentioned this to him when we met on 1 March. The position is that the Court of Appeal judgment in the atomic veterans group litigation granted the Ministry of Defence's appeal on limitation, not on causation. However, as part of this judgment, the court said that the claimants have produced no evidence which begins to satisfy those usual causation requirements and that the general merits of the claims were extremely weak.

Crime: Drink and Drug Driving

Earl Attlee: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport (Philip Hammond) has made the following Ministerial Statement.
	I have today placed in the Library of the House the Government's response to a report by Sir Peter North on drink and drug driving which was published in June 2010. This response also covers a report by the Transport Select Committee which was published in December 2010. The Government's response is available on the department's website at: www.dft.gov.uk.
	The Government are committed to improving road safety. It is a priority to deter driving when unfit through drugs or alcohol, and to ensure that those who persist in this dangerous behaviour are detected and punished effectively. We must protect law-abiding road users with measures that are effective and proportionate, concentrating on those who are a danger to themselves and other road users, while avoiding unnecessary social and economic impacts.
	We are convinced that our first priority must be to give the police the means to identify drug drivers and compel them to give evidential samples for testing. It is just as dangerous for people to drive impaired by alcohol or drugs, and it is quite wrong that it is easier at present to get away with one than the other. There needs to be a clear message that drug drivers are as likely to be caught and punished as drink drivers and that drug driving is as socially unacceptable as drink driving.
	We have taken the first steps to address this with a specification for drug testing equipment for the police. We aim to have this available for use later this year. We will-as Sir Peter suggested-examine the case for a new specific offence which would remove the need for the police to prove impairment on a case-by-case basis where a specified drug has been detected. The introduction of fixed thresholds for blood-alcohol as the test for drink driving has delivered benefits to road safety that are clear for all to see.
	Our strategy is to focus resources and any legislative changes on measures which will have the most impact in reducing dangerous behaviours. There are therefore two main priorities:
	to continue the successful abatement of drink driving and achieve similar success against drug driving by giving the police effective tools to identify and proceed against drink and drug drivers; andto streamline the enforcement process for drink and drug driving to remove pressure on police and other enforcement resources.
	A staggering proportion of drink drivers are well over the current limit-40 per cent of those caught by the police are 2.5 times the limit. The proportion of drivers over the limit who are killed is the same. Their behaviour is entrenched and displays a flagrant disregard for the law and the safety of other road users. We have concluded that improving enforcement is likely to have most impact on these dangerous people, and will therefore be the most effective use of scarce resources, rather than lowering the prescribed alcohol limit for driving.
	We will implement the following measures, bringing forward legislation where necessary at the earliest opportunity:
	revoke the right to opt for a blood test when the evidential breath test result is less than 40 per cent over the limit (the statutory option) as this causes delay which results in some offenders avoiding prosecution;streamline the procedure for testing drink drivers in hospital;close a loophole used by high-risk offenders to delay their medical examinations;require drink drivers who are substantially in excess of the limit to take remedial training and a linked driving assessment-as well as a medical examination-before recovering their licence;relaunch the drink drive rehabilitation scheme under which drink drivers can get the period of their driving disqualification reduced if they complete an approved training course;approve portable evidential breath testing equipment for the police and provide for preliminary testing not to be required where evidential testing can be undertaken away from the police station;approve preliminary drug-testing equipment, initially for use in police stations and at the roadside as soon as possible; anddelegate to custody nurses the assessment police doctors are now required to make of suspected drug-drivers.
	Full impact assessments, including among other things the potential impacts on enforcement and the judicial system, will be prepared in the usual way when legislation is brought forward.

Cycling

Earl Attlee: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker) has made the following Ministerial Statement.
	Today, I am announcing £836,000 of additional funding in this financial year to implement a number of small sustainable projects in the Cycle Towns and, separately, for three train operating companies to enhance their bike and rail schemes. This exceptional decision has been made possible due to prudent management of departmental expenditure, including additional efficiencies made this year.
	The chosen cycle town projects-Blackpool, Bristol, Cambridge, Colchester, Darlington, Derby, Exeter, Leighton-Linslade, South Glos, Southend, Shrewsbury and Woking-have been assessed as capable of being delivered within the current financial year while offering value for money. I believe this additional funding will assist in meeting the overall aims of the project to get more people cycling safely. All the recommended projects fit well with the strategic objectives of the towns concerned and will increase the effectiveness of their existing programmes in generating additional cyclists.
	The three train operating companies, Merseyrail, South West Trains and Northern Rail, have worked hard, in partnership with local authorities and other organisations, including Sustrans and Network Rail, to deliver high-quality infrastructure improvements accompanied by promotional activities. This is with the aim of encouraging more cycling to railway stations and to deliver improved integration of bike and rail journeys. This money will enable further enhancements to these schemes.
	Today's announcement complements, and is in addition to, our recently launched local sustainable transport fund which allows local authorities to bid for a share of £560 million over four years, aimed at encouraging sustainable transport solutions, including cycling initiatives, that will create economic growth and cut carbon.
	This additional funding demonstrates the Government's continued commitment to cycling, recognising its potential contribution to reducing carbon emissions, improving health and creating economic growth.

Employment: Flexible Working

Baroness Wilcox: My honourable friend the Minister for Employment Relations, Consumer and Postal Affairs (Edward Davey) made the following Statement to the House on Friday 18 March 2011.
	I am announcing today that I intend to repeal shortly the regulations on extending the right to request flexible working to parents of 17 year-olds that were laid before Parliament on 16 December 2010 and that were due to come into force on the 6 April 2011.
	The Government remain committed to extending the right to request flexible working to all employees in due course. We will consult on this extension later in the spring.
	The Government are constantly listening to the views of all stakeholders including business, and it has recently become clear that this small extension to the flexible working regulations could be an unhelpful complication at this important point in the UK's economic recovery when employers need to focus on growth and creating jobs. We therefore intend to repeal these regulations, which will also avoid multiple changes to the flexible working regulations over the coming years.

Energy: Feed-in Tariffs

Lord Marland: My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I am today announcing a consultation as part of the fast-track review of feed-in tariffs (FITs) for small-scale low-carbon electricity generation.
	On 7 February, I announced the start of the first comprehensive review of the FITs scheme for small-scale low-carbon electricity generation which would:
	assess all aspects of the scheme including tariff levels, administration and eligibility of technologies;be completed by the end of the year, with tariffs remaining unchanged until April 2012 (unless the review reveals a need for greater urgency);fast-track consideration of large-scale solar projects (over 50 kilowatts) with a view to making any resulting changes to tariffs as soon as practical, subject to consultation and parliamentary scrutiny as required by the Energy Act 2008; andalongside the fast-track review of large-scale solar PV, undertake a short study into the take-up of FITs for farm-based anaerobic digestion plants.
	The document published today deals with the last two of these points, and seeks views on proposals to changes tariffs for solar photovoltaic (PV) installations larger that 50 kilowatts and farm scale anaerobic digestion (AD) of up to 500 kilowatts. The proposed new bands and tariffs are as follows:
	For large PV installations:
	>50kW - =150kW: 19p/kWh;
	>150kW - =250kW: 15p/kWh; and
	>250kW - =5MW: 8.5p/kWh.
	And for farm scale AD installations:
	=250kW: 14p/kWh; and
	>250 - =500kW: 13p/kWh.
	The FITs scheme has been a success since its launch in April 2010 with over 27,000 FITs installations registered to date, of which 92 per cent are domestic-scale solar PV generators, which are not affected by the proposed changes in the fast-track review. The FITs scheme rewards generators for the green electricity they produce, use and sell back to the grid. We want to protect the diversity of the FITs scheme, and ensure that it benefits homes, small businesses and communities, and the full range of innovative technologies.
	In these financially challenging times, it is even more important that we get the balance of the scheme right. The projections for take-up of FITs published by the previous Government failed to anticipate any large or small-scale non-domestic solar PV installations until 2013. These projections have clearly proved to be flawed. Current market indications are that a rapid increase in the number of larger solar installations entering the scheme could distort funding for smaller and domestic-scale installations as well as other technologies. Conversely the current tariff levels have failed to spur a meaningful uptake for anaerobic digestion which means that this technology is not fulfilling its potential contribution to our energy mix.
	Decentralised renewables are a vital part of green growth and the FITs scheme has proved highly successful at stimulating growth, driving innovation, creating jobs and cutting carbon. We must act now to ensure that the scheme continues to deliver and we are able to achieve both our spending review commitment to improving the efficiency of the scheme, which will deliver £40 million of savings (around 10 per cent) in 2014-15, as well as ensuring that the benefits of a faster fall in technology costs are shared as widely as possible rather than captured in higher returns for a small number of individual investors.
	We are seeking views on proposed tariffs until 6 May 2011. The Government will not act retrospectively and any changes to generation tariffs implemented as a result of the review will only affect new entrants into the FITs scheme. Installations which are already accredited for FITs at the time will not be affected. We propose that these changes take effect from 1 August 2011, subject to the outcome of this consultation and parliamentary scrutiny.
	We are also seeking views on the scope of the comprehensive review by 12 April 2011.
	The consultation document can be accessed at: www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/consultations/fit_review/fit_review.aspx.

EU: Energy Council

Lord Marland: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Chris Huhne) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I will be attending the extraordinary Energy Council on 21 March, which has been called by the Hungarian presidency in order to take stock of the events in north Africa and Japan and to discuss their effect on energy markets. The council will focus on two discussion points:
	to review the state of play in the energy sectors of the countries linked to these international developments as well as their consequences on energy markets (eg, supply from north Africa, evolution of demand in Japan); and to exchange views on the response, already under way or to be undertaken, at EU (eg, crisis information and monitoring, various gas and oil co-ordination mechanisms) and member-state level (eg, national plans, redeployment of national supplies, review of safety measures), over various time horizons (from short term to medium/long term).
	I intend to emphasise that member states and the Commission need carefully to establish what lessons can be learned from Japan to see how they can be applied in the EU. The Government take the incident in Japan extremely seriously and I have already called on the chief nuclear inspector, Dr Mike Weightman, for a thorough report on the implications of the situation in Japan and the lessons to be learned. I will also emphasise that the EU should wait until the facts of the Japanese accident are clearer before taking any decisions about changes to the safety framework.
	As regards the events in north Africa, we will continue to emphasise the importance of close engagement with other states in the IEA and the IEF to ensure that proper consideration is given to any measure that would calm the market.

Health and Safety

Lord Freud: My right honourable friend the Minister for Employment (Chris Grayling) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Government are committed to a health and safety regime that is fair, balanced and proportionate. Sensible health and safety at work helps to maintain a healthy and productive workforce and contributes to economic prosperity. The burden of health and safety red tape has, however, become too great, with too many inspections of relatively low-risk and good performing workplaces, frequently poor health and safety advice to businesses from badly qualified consultants, and a complex structure for regulation. To address these issues, the Government are today publishing their plans for the reform of the health and safety system.
	We will clamp down on the rogue health and safety advisers who cost industry so much money by providing advice which often bears little relation to the actual requirements of legislation. To achieve this we have launched an official occupational safety and health consultants register for those health and safety practitioners who are properly accredited to one of the professional bodies in the industry. Those who do not have the requisite expertise and experience will be excluded from the register, making it easier for employers to access reliable, reputable advice. I am pleased to announce that the register will be open for the use of employers from today.
	We will shift the focus of health and safety activity away from businesses that do the right thing, and instead concentrate efforts on higher risk areas and on dealing with serious breaches of health and safety regulation. Those organisations which pose a lesser risk and which meet their legal responsibilities will be left free of unwarranted scrutiny. This will mean a very substantial drop in the number of health and safety inspections carried out in Britain. We will also shift the cost burden of health and safety away from the taxpayer, and instead make those organisations that fail to meet their obligations pay to put things right.
	We will seek to clarify and simplify health and safety legislation, and in doing so ease the burden on business. We are today launching new "Health and Safety Made Simple" guidance to provide lower risk small and medium-sized businesses with the essential information they need to achieve a basic level of health and safety management in their workplace in a single, easy-to-use package. We are also launching an immediate review of health and safety regulation overseen by an independent advisory panel chaired by Professor Ragnar Löfstedt, director of the King's Centre for Risk Management at King's College, London. The review will be asked to make recommendations by autumn 2011 for simplifying the current rules. We will also ask the review to consider whether changes to legislation are needed to clarify the position of employers in cases where employees act in a grossly irresponsible manner.
	Further details are available on the Department for Work and Pensions website at www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/health-and-safety. The latest progress on the implementation of the recommendations of Lord Young's report Common Sense Common Safety can be found on the same website.

Immigration

Baroness Neville-Jones: My honourable friend the Minister of State for Immigration (Damian Green) has today made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I have today published a report detailing the Government's response to the public consultation Refusing Entry or Stay to NHS Debtors conducted by the UK Border Agency between February and June last year. The consultation sought views on a proposal to amend the UK's Immigration Rules so that those subject to immigration control who fail to pay treatment charges made by the National Health Service under the relevant charging regulations for overseas visitors will normally be refused further leave to enter or remain. It also covered associated arrangements for the National Health Service to notify the UK Border Agency of relevant non-payments. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health is also publishing today a consultation report detailing the response to a separate Department of Health public consultation on changes to the NHS charging regulations in England.
	We have carefully considered the response to the UK Border Agency consultation, which was generally supportive of the proposals, and have decided to implement the proposed change to the Immigration Rules in October this year. Those who fail to discharge debts to the NHS of or in excess of £1,000 will normally be refused by the UK Border Agency if they seek further permission to enter or remain in the country.
	Copies of the response document will be placed in the Library of the House.

International Criminal Court

Lord Howell of Guildford: My honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Henry Bellingham) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The United Kingdom has made a donation of £500,000 to the International Criminal Court's (ICC) Trust Fund for Victims.
	The Trust Fund for Victims (TFV) was established by the states parties of the ICC in 2002 to benefit the victims of crimes within the court's jurisdiction. It is entirely funded by voluntary donations, and the British Government are now the second largest contributor to the fund. The focus of its work so far has been in northern Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, where its project work provides assistance to the victims of the most serious crimes, including torture and sexual violence.
	The ICC is now established as a cornerstone of the international justice system, and the recent referral to the court by the United Nations Security Council of the situation in Libya was a clear example of the core role that the court is now playing on the international stage. In all its work, the ICC has placed a special focus on the rights and needs of victims. The TFV, anticipating that its mandate on reparations will be activated in the foreseeable future, will continue to play an increasingly important role in support of these victims, as they seek to re-establish their dignity and livelihood.

NHS: Foreign Nationals

Earl Howe: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Anne Milton), has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I am today publishing the Government's response to the public consultation on access to the National Health Service by foreign nationals that was issued by the previous Administration before the election.
	The NHS is built on the principle that it provides a comprehensive service, based on clinical need, not the ability to pay. However, it is not free of charge to all comers. Legislation dating back to 1977 permits persons who are not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom to be charged for NHS services and subsequent regulations, first introduced in 1982, impose a charging regime in respect of hospital treatment.
	The charging regime provides for some categories of non-residents to be exempt from charges, and international agreements provide reciprocal healthcare that benefits visitors from and to participant countries. It also takes full account of humanitarian obligations in the provision of healthcare, in particular ensuring that the emergency medical needs of any person are treated irrespective of their status or ability to pay.
	The consultation was based on a limited review of access and charging policy. After considering the responses we received the Government have decided to take forward their main proposals, specifically to lay the new consolidated charging regulations including the specific changes that were consulted on:
	extend the time UK residents can spend abroad without losing automatic entitlement to free hospital treatment from three months to six months;allow failed asylum seekers who are on UK Border Agency support schemes for families, or because there is a barrier to their immediate return, to continue to receive free hospital treatment (but retain charges for those other failed asylum seekers who refuse to return home); andguarantee the provision of free hospital treatment for unaccompanied children while under local authority care
	In addition, we are taking this opportunity to introduce a limited-term exemption for Olympic and Paralympic Games competitors and officials in line with a commitment made in our successful 2005 bid, and to amend the trigger for exempting charges for pandemic flu treatment to protect public health.
	We also support the Home Office's plan to introduce proportionate immigration sanctions on overseas visitors who refuse to pay appropriate charges for treatment provided. The department will therefore introduce measures to enable data sharing with the Home Office to support this while guaranteeing necessary data privacy standards.
	However, it is increasingly clear that the overall charging regime is neither balanced nor efficient. Overall entitlement to free healthcare, through residency or other qualifying exemptions, is often more generous to visitors and short-term residents than is reciprocated for UK citizens seeking treatment in many other countries. Charging regulations only cover hospital treatment, so visitors may receive free primary care and other non-hospital-based healthcare services. Although hospitals have a statutory duty to enforce the regulations, effective enforcement by hospitals appears to vary considerably.
	For these reasons we believe that a further fundamental review of the current policy is needed. The review will include:
	qualifying residency criteria for free treatment;the full range of other current criteria that exempt particular services or visitors from charges for their treatment;whether visitors should be charged for GP services and other NHS services outside of hospitals; establishing more effective and efficient processes across the NHS to screen for eligibility and to make and recover charges; and whether to introduce a requirement for health insurance tied to visas.
	Access for European Union residents is determined by separate EU regulations. The review will not consider changes to these regulations.
	The review will respect the NHS's core values and its obligations to provide urgent treatment, as well as the need to protect public health and observe international agreements. Denying necessary access to any person or group is not an option. We will consider the full benefits and costs of introducing new charges including risks of deferred or delayed treatment and any other societal costs. It will be informed by exploring equivalent policies in other health economies and we will seek views and input from NHS managers and other interested parties. The scope of options is deliberately wide-ranging and we do not want to rule individual changes in or out pending this further evaluation. The proposals will be the subject of a full public consultation on completion of the review.
	The Government's response to the consultation has been placed in the Library. Copies are available to honourable Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.

NHS Pay Review Body

Earl Howe: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health (Andrew Lansley) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I am responding on behalf of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to the 25th report of the NHS Pay Review Body (NHSPRB). The report has been laid before Parliament today (Cm 8029). Copies of the report are available to honourable Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office. I am grateful to the chair and members of the NHSPRB for their report.
	We welcome the NHSPRB's 25th report and accept its conclusions in full. We will take forward the suggested actions, which will help us continue to improve our support for the NHSPRB's important work.

Prison Service Pay Review Body

Lord McNally: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Crispin Blunt), has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The 10th report of the Prison Service Pay Review Body (PSPRB) (Cm 8021) has been laid before Parliament today. The report makes recommendations for staff within the remit group who earn the full-time equivalent of £21,000 and below, and who are eligible for an increase in 2011-12 under the Government's announced pay policy for public sector workforces. Copies of the report are available at http://www.ome.uk.com/ PSPRB_Annual_Reports.aspx. I am grateful to the chair and members of the PSPRB for their hard work in producing these recommendations.
	The PSPRB key recommendations for 2011 are as follows:
	a consolidated increase of £250 to all pay points at or below £21,000, including the first two points on the closed prison officer scale; anda requirement for the service and the POA to engage promptly in constructive dialogue with a view to agreeing the pay scales to apply for prison officer 2, prison officer 1 and the new operational support grade (OSG).
	The PSPRB's recommendations, which are consistent with our proposals for 2011-12, will be implemented. The cost of the award will be met from within the delegated budget allocation for the National Offender Management Service.

School Teachers' Review Body

Lord Hill of Oareford: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove) made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The School Teachers' Review Body's (STRB's) recommendations on pay for those unqualified teachers who earn a full-time equivalent salary of £21,000 or less are being published today. The recommendations cover the first of two matters which were referred to the STRB in October 2010. I am grateful for the careful consideration which the STRB has given to this matter. Copies of the STRB's analysis and recommendations are available in the Vote Office, the Printed Paper Office and the Libraries of the House, and online at http://www.education.gov.uk and http://www.ome.uk.com/.
	The STRB has recommended that a non-consolidated payment of £250 should be made to those unqualified teachers who earn £21,000 or less; that the £250 is pro-rated for part-time unqualified teachers; and that consultation should seek to identify a simple and cost-effective method of payment.
	I am grateful to the STRB for these recommendations which will apply to those unqualified teachers on scale points 1 to 3 and, subject to consultees' views, I intend to accept these recommendations.
	My detailed response contains further information on these issues.
	Annexe to Written Ministerial Statement of 21 March 2011
	Department for Education
	School Teachers' Review Body's (STRB's) recommendations on pay for those unqualified teachers who earn a full-time equivalent salary of £21,000 or less and response from the Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove).
	[The following sets out the STRB's recommendations which were published on 21 March 2011, together with the response from the Secretary of State for Education. The STRB's recommendations below are in bold.]
	The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove): The STRB's analysis and recommendations on pay for those unqualified teachers who earn a full-time equivalent salary of £21,000 or less are being published today. The recommendations cover the first matter which was referred to the STRB in October 2010. Copies of the analysis and recommendations are available in the Vote Office, the Printed Paper Office and the Libraries of the House and online at http://www.education.gov.uk and http://www.ome.uk.com/.
	In making its recommendations, the STRB was required to have regard to items a to e set out in the remit letter of 27 October 2010. The recommendations apply to those unqualified teachers earning £21,000 or less in the context of the two-year public sector pay freeze that will affect teachers from September 2011; and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury's instruction that there should be a minimum award of £250 in each of these two years. I am grateful for the careful attention the STRB has given to this matter.
	The STRB is due to submit its 20th report, which will include the recommendations set out below as well as recommendations on whether there should be a limit on the value of discretions that can be applied to headteachers' pay, by 30 March. I propose, therefore, that the statutory consultation on the STRB's recommendations (below) should wait until the 20th report and my response to that report are published in due course. I will, however, accept comments in the mean time on the pay recommendations for unqualified teachers earning £21,000 or less.
	Recommendations on pay for unqualified teachers earning £21,000 or less
	The STRB has recommended that:
	a non-consolidated payment of £250 be made in both years to all full-time teachers on spine points 1 to 3 of the unqualified teachers' scale;the £250 payment be pro-rated according to their working hours for part-time teachers on points 1 to 3 of the unqualified teachers' scale;the department consult, with a view to identifying a simple and cost-effective method of payment, and issue guidance as appropriate.
	I am grateful to the STRB for its consideration of this issue and, subject to consultees' views, I intend to implement the payment from September 2011. I also intend, subject to consultees' views, for the school's relevant body to decide how the £250 payment should be implemented.

Senior Salaries Review Body

Lord Strathclyde: My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made the following Statement.
	Since coming to power the Government have taken a number of steps to control public sector pay. At the first meeting of the Cabinet, Ministers announced that they would take a 5 per cent pay cut-and that their pay would be frozen for the rest of the Parliament-vital savings have been achieved by freezing the pay of those earning over £21,000 and placing restrictions on bonuses for senior managers; transparency has been increased by publishing the salaries of senior Whitehall officials; and requirements for ministerial scrutiny of the highest public sector wages have been extended and strengthened.
	In the Civil Service in particular significant savings have been made. Departmental spending envelopes set at the spending review mean that administration costs will fall by £5.899 million by 2014-15, a reduction of 34 per cent. In addition departments have taken forward recruitment freezes which, alongside reforms to the Civil Service Compensation Scheme, will deliver further savings over the spending review period.
	It is in this context that the 33rd report of the review body on senior salaries (SSRB) is being published today. The report covers the remuneration of the judiciary, senior civil servants, senior officers in the Armed Forces and certain senior NHS managers. Copies have been laid in the Vote Office, the Printed Paper Office and the Libraries of both Houses. I thank the SSRB for its work in preparing this report.
	The Judiciary
	Given in particular the two-year pay freeze that will be in place for public servants earning over £21,000 from April 2011, the Government are not announcing any immediate changes to judicial salaries, but are considering the detail of the report overall and will respond at an appropriate time.
	Senior Civil Service
	The Government confirm that they will continue to work on reforms to the current SCS reward model that are consistent with the Government's wider policy on restraint in public sector pay, and senior pay in particular, and the need to ensure that the Civil Service can continue to recruit, retain and motivate sufficient people of the necessary quality to fulfil the important roles undertaken by the SCS. The Government are grateful for the constructive engagement from the trade unions on SCS pay reform and will continue to consult and engage with them going forwards.
	Senior Officers in the Armed Forces
	The Government have accepted the review body's recommendation that the Ministry of Defence review the performance management and pay system and consider whether improvements can be made.
	Senior NHS Managers
	The Government thank the review body for its work in this area and for continuing to monitor recruitment and retention over the pay freeze period.
	Other Review Body reports for 2011-12
	My right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Defence, Justice, Education and Health are making Statements today on the reports of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, the Prison Service Pay Body, the School Teachers' Review Body, and the NHS Pay Review Body in respect of pay for the relevant workforces.

Transport: Urban Congestion

Earl Attlee: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker) has made the following Ministerial Statement.
	I am today announcing the final tranche of payments from the urban congestion performance fund that will see the 10 largest urban areas in England receive a further £3.75 million to address the causes of urban congestion.
	These payments are the final payments made through the fund, which is linked to the local congestion targets set by the 10 largest urban areas in England in their local transport plans.
	The £3.75 million payment will be shared between the participating areas as below:
	
		
			 Urban Area Sum to be paid via Tranche 4 
			 London £1,125,000 
			 Greater Manchester £470,364 
			 West Midlands £438,727 
			 West Yorkshire £382,600 
			 South Yorkshire £300,752 
			 Tyne and Wear £252,049 
			 Merseyside £320,892 
			 Nottingham £155,890 
			 West of England (Bristol) £154,869 
			 Leicester £148,857 
			 Total £3,750,000